|
Location: UK
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,415
|
|
If you are pulling me on what I stated in a previous post about non KC staffs, I'll explain
I'm not a huge fan of 'alternative staffs' after seeing more than a few in the flesh, I'll make no secret of that, they are not any more healthier than today's KC stafford in my opinion and it's wrong for owners of 'alternative' Staffords to profess that they are otherwise as they are not.
Infact, 'alternative' staffies seem to be the latest trend around my way badly bred and 'typey' springs to mind and as far as I am concerned 'typey'
is badly bred especially when I am looking at dogs that are 'supposed' Staffords that look nothing like one or even resemble one in any way.
As I said I don't see
anywhere in todays standard that a dog would be penalised for being taller - it says 'desired height' as long as the dogs were in proportion I personally can't see where or how a taller dog would be penalised.
The KC states a list of breed faults that are highly 'undesireable' height isn't given a mention anywhere within that standard. The standard hasn't changed a great deal - but I merely corrected the few posters that replied saying the standard was changed without giving proper facts on when the drop in height occured it certainly was not 1987, the standard was re-worded, not re-written.